Note: This document is updated version of the papers
presented in a series of seminars organized by the Institute
of Foreign Affairs and FES in Nepalgunj, Birgunj, Biratnagar
and Kathmandu. 2001 .

The Evolution of Nepal's International Boundary with China
and India

Like most of the countries of the world,
the existence of Nepal had been recognised even before the
international boundaries had been fully and finally established.
Mention of Nepal is found in the ancient history of both
China and India. Nepal-China boundary is as old as the history
of the two countries, but in contrast to the very ancient
cultural, social, political and economic relations, Nepal-India
boundary has a comparatively recent origin and its present
boundary demarcation and delimitation took place after the
Anglo-Nepal War of 1814-16. In contrast to Nepal's boundary
with India on three sides: west, south and east, the boundary
between Nepal and China lies in the north only. However,
the demarcation of Nepal-China boundary had been a problem
in the past, because more than 90 percent of the frontiers
run through high altitudes with rocks and snow, glaciers
and ice fields which are entirely uninhabited. Both countries
have respected and continue to respect the existing traditional
and customary boundary line and have lived in amity. No
remarkable or noticeable territorial dispute has existed
between Nepal and China. The few territorial disputes that
existed were over rival claims for the settlements of Kimathanka
in the Sankhuwasabha and Taplejung districts, the area adjoining
the border of Rasuwa, and Nara Nangla of Humla district
with the origin of dispute dating back to 1815, 1818 and
1834 respectively (Nepali, 1964:1).:These disputes were
resolved by the Nepal-China Joint Boundary Commission on
October 5, 1961.

The ruggedness of Nepal-China boundary
is clearly revealed by its length which is 1415 kilometres,
while Nepal-India boundary which runs along three sides
of Nepal is only 1850 kilometers, 465 kilometers longer
than Nepal-China boundary. The 1415 kilometre length of
Nepal-China boundary is based on measurement in the maps
( for details on Nepal-China Boundary see Annex). If the
actual measurement is made on the ground along the slopes
and ridges of the mountains, the length of the boundary
will be more than that indicated by the measurement in the
maps. So far as Nepal-India boundary is concerned, the mountainous
portions of the boundary lie in Sikkim State and Darjeeling
district of West Bengal State in the east, while rest of
the boundary runs along the plains in the south and along
the Mahakali River in the west.

The Delineation and Demarcation of
Nepal-India Boundary

Prior to the domination of India by the British East India
Company, both Nepal and India were divided into petty kingdoms
and principalities. As such, very little information is
available regarding the extent of border as well as border
disputes between Nepal and India. The British East India
Company had already started the colonisation, expansion
and consolidation of Indian states and principalities through
invasion, and was planning to invade Nepal after the death
of King Prithvinarayan Shah. The plea for invading Nepal
was their false claim over the control of Butawal, which
in reality belonged to Nepal. The Anglo-Nepal War of 1814
and the subsequent treaty of peace signed between Nepal
and the East India Company on December 8, 1816 resulted
in the delimitation and delineation of Nepal-India border.
The Mahakali River formed the western boundary, while the
Mechi formed the boundary in the east along with ridges
in the Darjeeling hills and Sikkim. Accordingly, Nepal had
to forsake the areas lying to the west of the Mahakali River
and the areas lying to the east of the Mechi River including
the return of the territory of the Rajah of Sikkim occupied
by Nepal. The East India Company delineated and demarcated
the southern boundary on its own. But no demarcation was
made for the Tarai region lying between the Mahakali River
and the Arrah Nala, which was ceded to the British India
in 1816. Moreover, the entire western Tarai was almost covered
with dense forests, and, at the same time, there was no
physical basis to discern the northern limit of Tarai. Nepal
and India had a dispute over this ill-defined and ill-demarcated
boundary. Prime Minister Jung Bahadur spent the last two
decades of his rule in solving these problems. In his lifetime,
he settled all the problems affecting the boundary between
Nepal and India, because he was apprehensive that in the
future such problems might lead to friction between the
two states (Husain, 1970:108). A straight line between the
two pillars was drawn for the demarcation of the border
in the forest areas, while demarcation in the cultivated
land was made on the basis of village boundaries on the
principle of mutual give and take. Major disputes and problems
arose in the case of river boundary due to erratic changes
in the river courses in the Tarai region. In recognition
of assistance of Nepalese army in quelling the 1857 mutiny
in Lucknow, and because of the fact that the western Tarai,
which was ceded to India under the Treaty of 1816, was retrocede
to Nepal, the Boundary Commissions of the two Governments
met in North Oudh at Bhagura Tal in February 1860 to survey
and demarcate the boundary. After the completion of the
survey and demarcation, the King of Nepal and the British
Resident signed a formal treaty on November 1, 1860. Even
after that, the dispute over the river boundary between
Mondia Ghat to Bunbasa along the Mahakali (Sharada) river
arose immediately after the treaty and was resolved in December
1864. Nepal made the claim over the Dudhawa Range up to
the foot of the hills, while the British insisted on the
Range watershed forming the boundary and the area along
the Southern slopes of the watershed belonging to India.
The Agreement endorsing the claim of Nepal was ratified
on June 7, 1875 (Tyagi, 1974:88-98). For the Nepalese territory
of 2800 acres ceded to India for the construction of the
Sharada Barrage in the early 1900s, a total of 4000 acres
in Taratal area to the south of Bardia district was given
to Nepal. Later, the survey and review of the territory
ceded to India by Nepal revealed that an excess of 31 acres
had gone to India. India had agreed to compensate for that
area, but it has not yet materialised.

The actual scientific demarcation of Nepal-India
boundary started during the topographical survey of the
whole of Nepal carried out by the Survey of India in 1926-27.
As the survey was carried out from the lower altitudes in
the mountain areas in the north, it failed to delineate
Nepal-China boundary in the north. This survey produced
topographical maps for Nepal indicating Nepal-India boundary
including the location and number of each boundary pillar
together with topographical details of the Indian side in
the maps as well. The scale of topographical maps was 1
inch to 4 miles. The topographical survey of 1955-58 conducted
again by the Survey of India provided more detailed survey
of Nepal both through aerial and ground surveys and resulted
in the publication of maps to the scale of 1 inch to a mile.
This map also indicated the boundary line and boundary pillars
with their respective numbers. However, the Indian territory
across Nepal-India boundary was left blank. One notable
fact about the topographical maps of Nepal and Bhutan is
that the Surveyor General of both was Brigadier General
Gambir Singh, and in the case of the topographical maps
of Bhutan, details across the India Bhutan border on both
sides have been shown. The absence of landmarks onon the
topographical maps on the Indian side across the Nepal India
border has been the major reson behind the encroachment
of Nepalese territories across the border. Since the demarcation
of Nepal India border after the Treaty of Sugauli, there
has been tremendous change in the landscape on either sides
of the border with tremendous change in man made features
as compared to the natural landscapes. There has been no
attempt so far to up date the boundary treaty maps according
to these changes. In case of the Nepal China boundary, the
boundary treaty maps contain detailed land features both
natural and man-made features on either sides of the border
and provided basis for the adjustment of the border to its
original position if some discrepancies occurred due to
natural or man made causes. It is due to this fact that
since the signing of the boundary protocol between Nepal
and China since 1961, there has not been any problem regarding
the boundary between Nepal and China

There has been several delays in making
available the topographical maps by Survey of India to Nepal.
.It took more than 25 years to secure the topographical
maps of Nepal as they were provided on piecemeal basis.
The Survey of India has not make available 17 sheets of
which 12 sheets pertain to Nepal India barder area including
that of the Kalapani, and 5 sheets pertaining to the Nepal
China border.

Under the Sugauli Treaty, Nepal withdrew
from all the territory it had occupied in Sikkim as Nepal
had no formal treaty with Sikkim regarding Nepal-Sikkim
boundary. The British East India Company, under the Treaty
of Titaliya on 10 February 1871 with the Government of Sikkim
restored the territory ceded by Nepal. A Sunnud dated 7
April 1817 regarding the granting of the territory to the
Rajah of Sikkim stated:

"The honourable East India Company,
in consideration of the services performed by the Hill tribes
under the control of the Rajah of Sikkim, and of the attachment
shown to him to the interest of the British Government,
grants to the Sikkimputtee Rajah, his heirs and successors
all that portion of low land situated eastward of the Meitchie
River , and westward of the Maha Nuddee, formerly Possessed
by the Rajah of Nepaul, but ceded to the Honourable East
India Company by the Treaty of Segoulee, to be held by the
Sikkimputtee Rajah as a feudatory, or as acknowledging the
supremacy of the British Government over the said lands,
subject to the following conditions."

Moreover, there has not been any formal
treaty between Nepal and India on Nepal-Sikkim Boundary
after the independence of India, and even after the annexation
of Sikkim with India in 1975. It is to be noted that Nepal
has not yet formally recognised the annexation of Sikkim
by India,. and, at the same time, India has not sought recognition
from Nepal.

Before the independence of India, there
existed a system of regular survey and supervision of Nepal-India
boundary jointly conducted by the officials of both countries
every year to oversee and find out encroachment, if any,
on the boundary, ill-defined boundary, missing and broken
as well as displaced boundary pillars with the objective
to fix and place them in their original position. Accordingly,
while Nepal has been entrusted to look after the pillars
having odd number, India looks after the pillars having
even number. After the independence of India, no joint boundary
survey has been conducted until the formation of a Joint
Boundary Commission in 1981 with the composition of six
boundary survey teams. Delay in the formation of a Joint
Boundary Commission resulted in several boundary disputes,
which remain unresolved, because the activities of the Commission
are going on at a very slow pace. There is provision for
two meetings of the Joint Boundary Commission every year.
Twenty years have elapsed since the formation of the Commission
in 1981 and accordingly, there should have been 36 meetings
up to 1999, but so far only 22 meetings have been convened
(Shrestha, 2000:168). Boundary survey of almost all the
districts bordering India has been completed except for
Darchula, Dadeldhura and Kanchanpur as well as the border
with Sikkim state of India. Moreover, there have been several
cases of encroachment on and tampering with the boundary
markers and damage, destruction and removal of boundary
pillars in the areas already surveyed by the joint boundary
teams. As a result, there exist several cases of boundary
disputes with resulting claims and counter claims. There
are reportedly 8 disputed areas along the Nepal India border
with a total of six along the rivers of the Mahakali, the
Narayani/Gandak (Susta) and the Mechi and the other two
are in Pasupatinagar and Thori. There are several areas
along the Nepal-India border where no man's land has been
encroached on both sides. According to Mr. Buddhi Narayan
Shrestha, the former Director General of the Department
of Survey of Nepal, there are 53 disputed and encroached
areas along the Nepal-India boundary. However, the All Nepal
Free Students' Union affiliated with the Nepal Communist
Party (Marxist and Leninist) has indicated 61 disputed areas
along the Nepal-India boundary. Out of the 26 districts
of Nepal bordering India, the map indicates 22 districts
having encroachment (problem) and the only 4 remaining districts
having no boundary problem are Baitadi, Bara, Mahottari
and Dhanusha. The map also indicates boundary problems in
the districts bordering the Sikkim State of India. Recently,
it has been made mandatory by the both governments to their
district authorities on both sides of the Nepal India border
to provide information on the status of their respective
border in other to oversee and prevent encroachment and
damage to the boundary.

The Nepal-India Open Border

Before the signing of the Sugauli Treaty
between Nepal and India and subsequent demarcation of the
Nepal India boundary, there existed free and unrestricted
movement of people of Nepal and India across the border.
It was almost impossible to control and regulate the movement
of people along more than 1400 kilometres long border. Nevertheless,
the main thoroughfare existed for social relations, cultural
exchanges (pilgrimages, festivities, fairs, etc.) and trade
and commerce and they constituted the major road junctions
and places for levying customs duties. Nepal-India border
is unique in the world in the sense that people of both
the countries can cross it from any point, despite the existence
of border checkposts at several locations. The number of
check posts meant for carrying out bilateral trade is 22.
However, only at six transit points out of them, the movement
was permitted to nationals of third countries, who require
entry and exit visa to cross the border. As the whole length
of the border except police does not patrol the checkposts
or paramilitary or military forces of either country, illegal
movement of goods and people is a common feature on both
sides of the India-Nepal border.

It is not known how the system of free
movement of people on either side of the border continued
even after the delineation and demarcation of Nepal-India
border after 1816. Prior to the 1814 war, the movement of
people of both countries was allowed, but they were not
allowed to purchase land and settle in the Tarai. Nevertheless,
Nepal has been the land of shelter for the refugees fleeing
due to the fear from powerful enemies. The Lichhavis, the
Mallas and the Shakyas who existed before the birth of Lord
Buddha, took refugee in the Tarai and the Valleys of the
Himalayas when their lands were usurped by Ajatasatru. Similarly,
during the Muslim invasions of India, the Mallas and the
Shahs are reported to have taken refuge in Nepal. The growing
domination of India the British East India Company prompted
the rulers of Nepal to restrict the movement of Indians
into Nepal. Moreover, the Tarai could not be brought under
cultivation through immigrants from India, because they
were neither permitted to purchase land nor entitled to
have tenancy rights. Thus the large tracts of the Tarai
were covered by dense forests and infested with malaria.
The cattle herders of adjoining Indian territories of Champaran
and other districts used to graze cattle annually for four
months (October to January) by paying duty. Duty was levied
on buffaloes and cows were exempted from the levy (Kirkpatrick,
1801:83). Similarly, the agreement on Dudhawa Range specially
preserved the right of the Indian nationals to come to the
hills for bankas (a type of grass) by paying revenue. Prior
to 1789, the Nepal Government established bazaars on the
border of Nepal and India for regulating trade and decided
that trade could be conducted at these points only. This
hampered the freedom of trade, as the British (Indian) merchants
had to cross the border and enter into the Nepalese bazaars,
and return with whatever they could not sell. Anyone entering
Nepal, particularly the Kathmandu Valley and other places
in the Tarai in general, prior to the restoration of Oudh
Tarai to Nepal in 1860, had to get rahadani or visa from
the district governor. This was relaxed during the festival
of Shivaratri and after the festival the combing up operation
was done to expel all those who had come to attend the festival.
This system continued even after the installation of democracy
in 1951 until the opening of the Tribhuvan Rajpath in late
1950s.

The Treaty of 1860 and the Nepal India
Open Border

In recognition of the supply of Nepalese
army at the disposal of the British East India Company to
quell the Sepoy Mutiny, the Treaty of 1 November 1860 signed
between India and Nepal restored the territory ceded to
India under the 1816 Treaty of Suguali. Prime Minister Jung
Bahadur tried to develop the Far Western Tarai restored
to Nepal by the British as his family property. In order
to develop it he made provision in the first legal code
of the country formulated during his time, in which foreigners
were entitled to purchase and sell land in the Tarai. He
even invited the businessmen, traders and the landlords
from India. This led to the large scale immigration of Indians
into the Tarai for reclamation of forests, for agriculture
and for trade and commerce. In the eastern Tarai the Yadav
community exploited this opportunity and their significant
number is an instance in point. Some of them had even settled
in these places before that. Moreover, in the historical
past after the draining away of the Kathmandu Valley lake,
some of the cow herders from the south settled in Nepal
and are said to have established the Gopalbanshi Dynasty.
Before the conquest of the Kathmandu Valley by King Prithvinarayan
Shah, the culture and economy of the Valley was so rich
that it not only attracted people from outside, but also
assumed the role of a melting pot, wherein the in-migrants
to the valley coming from both the south and north adopted
the Newari culture and language.

The British Government kept the Nepal-India
border open primarily for two purposes. The first was to
maintain unrestricted migration of the Nepalese hill people
to India and to procure them for recruitment in the Indian
army. Recruitment of the Nepalese in the British army was
very difficult up to the period of Prime Minister Ranodip
Singh, because the Government of Nepal was in principle
against the recruitment of its people in a foreign army.
The clandestine and secret operations adopted by the British
to get Nepal hill people in the Indian army were disliked
by the Nepalese government which took strong measures to
discourage the practice. Some of the Gorkhas serving in
the Indian army on their return home on leave were even
put to death and the property of those serving the Indian
army was confiscated (Mojumdar, 1973:42-3). Sensing the
harassment meted to families of the Gorkhas in the Indian
army by the Nepalese government and to make the recruitment
easier, the British Government encouraged migration of the
Gorkhas from Nepal with their families and established Gorkha
settlements in the hills of India, such as Bhagsu, Bakloh,
Almora, Darjeeling, Deharadun, Shillong, etc.(H.M.S.O, 1965:61)
It was only during the period of Prime Minister Bir Shumsher
that the Nepalese government freely allowed enlistment of
Nepalese in the Indian army (Kansakar, 1982::77-124).

The second important factor for maintaining
open border by the British was to have easy and free access
of British and Indian manufactured goods into Nepal as well
as to Tibet wherein Nepal was the only easy and accessible
route from India before the discovery of Chumbi Valley route
from Sikkim.. Moreover, the British wanted to have secure
and easy supply of raw materials from Nepal into India such
as timber and forest produce, herbs and medicinal plants,
hides and skins, etc.

1923 Treaty of Friendship between Great Britain and Nepal
and Development of the Tarai

The large scale involvement of men from
the hills of Nepal in the World War I led to the shortage
of able-bodied youths, particularly the Magars and the Gurungs,
resulting in drastic decline in agriculture activities and
shortage of foodgrains in the hills. More than 200,000 Nepalese
took part in the war with a casualty of 20,000 men or one
in every 10. In recognition of this assistance the British
government gave Nepal an annual gift of Rs. 100,000 in perpetuity
and the amount was increased to Rs. 200,000 after World
War II (Mansergh and Moon, 1976:62). Most of those who were
retired and released from war duty after the war, instead
of coming back to Nepal, stayed in India where they could
get employment in police and para-military services, security
services in factories, offices as well as as domestic servants
in Indian cities where they were in great demand for their
honesty, loyalty and hard work. In recognition of the contribution
of Nepal during World War I, the Treaty of Friendship between
Great Britain and Nepal signed at Kathmandu on 21 December
1923 recognised Nepal as a sovereign independent country,
and this treaty erased from the Nepalese mind the apprehension
of invasion by the British. In order to meet the foodgrains
need of the country and to resettle the landless, Prime
Minister Chandra Shumsher initiated the development of the
Tarai. On the one hand, the clearing of the forests in the
Tarai provided agricultural lands and on the other hand,
the sal tree that was felled provided much needed timber
to be used as sleepers for the expansion of Indian railways.
Due to the fear of malaria and unbearable heat of the Tarai,
the hill people were reluctant to move to the Tarai and
the programme rather benefited the immigrants from India.
Moreover, development programmes of the Tarai during the
period of Chandra Shumsher like railways linking Amlekhganj
to Raxaul and Janakpur to Jayanagar, Chandra canal etc attracted
more immigrants from India. Chandra Shumsher abolished slavery
in 1926 and the emancipated slaves were resettled in Bicha
Khori and which was named as Amlekhgunj, town of emancipation.
The freed slaves provided the labour for the construction
of railway from Raxaul to Amlekhgunj.

Industrialisation and Development in
the Tarai

There has been significant contribution
of the Indian technical manpower and skilled immigrants
to the industrialisation of the Tarai. During the period
of Prime Minister Juddha Shumsher, a lot of industries were
established in Biratnagar, Birganj and other areas of the
Tarai in the process of industrialisation in the Tarai.
Industries were established in jute, cotton and textile,
matches, plywood and bobbin, pulses, rice, flour, oil, etc.
The skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled labour for these
industries came from India. Those living in the Tarai who
had enough land to till for livelihood were not in need
of employment outside agriculture, while people from the
hill areas, who lacked technical and industrial skills were
reluctant to move down to the hot, humid and malarial Tarai
and were more inclined to migrate to India for employment.
Thus employment opportunities generated by industrialisation
in the Tarai benefited and attracted the Indian immigrants.
This trend is still continuing. After the Great Earthquake
of 1934, a new modern township around New Road was created
in the Kathmandu city with new buildings and shopping lines;
local businessmen of Kathmandu and businesmen from India
were invited to open up shops. The Marwaris some of whom
have been settling before earthquake and the other Indian
business communities established shops at New Road and in
and around Indrachowk, while the original inhabitants who
were displaced as a result of the creation of New Road were
resettled in Naya Bazar, the are a between Paknajol and
Balaju in Kathmandu.

The Nepal-India Treaty of 1950 and
the Open Border

The Nepal-India Peace and Friendship Treaty
which was signed on July 31, 1950 agreed to grant, on a
reciprocal basis, to the nationals of one country in the
territory of the other the same privileges on matters of
residence, ownership of property, participation in trade
and commerce, movement and other privileges of a similar
nature. It became a major turning point in the movement
of Indians into Nepal and was further reinforced by the
Nepal India open border. However, it did not materialise
until the installation of democracy in February 1951, which
replaced the oligarchic Rana regime within three and a half
months of the signing of the Treaty. It is said that in
response to the evolution of incidents in Kashmir, the Nizam
State of Hyderabad and the Indian states and territories
bordering China, Sardar Patel, as he assumed the portfolio
of Home Minister, strongly pleaded and persuaded Prime Minister
Nehru to impose some sort of control on Nepal and the result
was the Treaty of 1950 and it is clearly reflected in his
letter to Nehru (See appendix ). It is to be noted that
the Rana Government assisted Indian Government by sending
Nepalese troops, when India had to face problems in Hyderabad
during independence and in Kashmir in 1948.

Evolution of Major Events due to Nepal-India
Open Border after the Installation of Democracy in 1951

As per the agreement between the Nepali
Congress and the Rana regime, Mohan Shumsher who as the
Prime Minister of Nepal signed the 1950 treaty became the
Prime Minister after the installation of democracy in Nepal.
Democracy installed in the country actually implemented
the spirit of the 1950 Treaty. The movement of Indians into
Nepal was not only relaxed, but they also started purchasing
land, and were engaged in trade, commerce and other different
occupations. The economic and employment opportunities created
by the establishment and development of industry, trade,
education and health were capitalised by the Indian immigrants
by virtue of their capital, enterpreneurship, skill and
technology which the people of the hills as well as those
of the Tarai lacked. Those from the hills preferred to emigrate
to India and Malaya for recruitment in the army and other
services rather than move to the hot, humid and malarial
Tarai to compete with the skilled migrants from India.

After the complete control over Tibet
by China, Nepal witnessed a large influx of about 16,000
Tibetan refugees who were rehabilitated in the camps established
at Jawalakhel in Lalitpur, Pokhara, Mustang, Solukhumbu,
Baglung, etc. As these refugees were rehabilitated by the
International Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner for
Refugees and were involved in their traditional wool and
carpet industries, which provided income for their livelihood,
their adverse impact on Nepalese economy was hardly felt.
The transfer of technology provided by the Tibetan refugees
in the carpet industry rather proved to be a boon for Nepal,
as carpet has been established as the largest export and
foreign exchange earning industry of Nepal providing employment
to more than 300,000 people.

Status of Open Border during Panchayat
Period

The Nepalese who migrated to Burma via
Assam during British rule in India in the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries settled in Burma and were
engaged in agriculture, dairy farming, trade and business.
In 1964 when Burma (now Myanmar) enforced the Burmese Citizenship
Act, those Nepalese who opted for Burmese citizenship stayed
back in Burma and those who wanted to retain Nepalese citizenship
returned to Nepal. As the returning refugees were allowed
to take only limited property, Nepal Government had to take
responsibility to resettle them in Nepal. Under the Israeli
experts, the government established a Nepal Resettlement
Company to launch the first land resettlement in Nawalpur
to the west of Chitawan across the Narayani river with the
objective of resettling the landless, the natural disaster
victims and Nepalese returning from Burma and from North
Eastern States of India (Kansakar, 1979:65). There was also
influx of domiciled Nepalese from North Eastern States of
India, who fled from the wrath of the native people who
launched agitation against the foreigners and also the Indians
from outside that region (Kansakar, 1984:65). In the mean
time the government launched Land Reform programme with
the imposition of ceiling on maximum holdings so as to secure
excess land above ceiling and to distribute it among the
landless in the country. As land reform was launched in
the different districts of the country at different stages,
it provided opportunities to the big landlords to make necessary
arrangement to adjust their lands among their families and
relatives. Thus the excess land likely to be received from
land reform was far below the expectation of the government.
Moreover, landlords started evicting the tenants from their
land to avoid conferring tenancy rights. The government
could not meet the demand of the people aspiring for land
under resettlement programme and the result was the reckless
deforestation of the Tarai forests by migrants from the
hills who started moving to the Tarai after the eradication
of malaria. Moreover, after the enactment of land reform
programme, the landlords started tilling their land with
the help of immigrant labour from India, because foreigners
were neither entitled to purchase land nor were they entitled
to have tenancy rights. This led to the large scale influx
of migrant labourers from India, and with the passage of
time they became eligible to get Nepalese citizenship. Over
time, the Tarai witnessed large-scale influx of population
from within the hills and the mountain areas of Nepal as
well as from India. In order to meet the demand of labour
and services in different sectors and population of the
Tarai, further influx of immigrants with different skills
took place from India.

Land Reform and Open Border

As already stated, the big landlords were
able to dislodge tenants so as to avoid conferring tenancy
rights under the Land Reform Act. As a result, a large number
of low caste people and untouchables like Mushahar, Dom,
Chamar, Bantar, Tatma, Dhobi, etc. were deprived of tenancy
rights and were compelled to work as agriculture labour
in the farms of the landlord and were allowed to stay there.
They became landless with no land and housing property of
their own. As a result, they were deprived of the Nepali
citizenship certificate for which property ownership of
land or house is essential. However, their names have been
enrolled on the voter list. Political parties have raised
issues, particularly by the Nepal Sadbhabana Party regarding
the need for conferring citizenship certificate on 4 million
Nepalese in the Tarai. The exact number of Nepalese who
have not got citizenship certificate is not known. Most
of the Commissions constituted to investigate the issue
of citizenship have come up with ad hoc figures without
any details regarding the name, address and age of those
who have not yet got Nepalese citizenship. However, none
of the political parties has launched campaign to prepare
the list of bonafide Nepalese who have not yet got citizenship
certificate. The landless of the Tarai like Mushahar, Dom,
Chamar, Bantar, Tatma, Dhobi, etc. have been deprived of
several benefits to which a Nepali citizen is entitled,
and being the landless they have neither been able to get
land under resettlement programme nor could they buy land.
It is alleged that the political leaders and government
officials are interested in securing Nepali citizenship
certificate for Indians who could afford to spend money.
There are reports and complaints that foreigners ineligible
for Nepali citizenship have also acquired citizenship by
means of false declaration or fraud or undue influence,
malpractice and corruption (New Era, June 2000:7.69). Moreover,
the big landlords could avoid the ceiling on land under
Land Reform Act by converting their land for commercial
farming like horticulture farm and tea plantation. These
commercial farms could not get and employ Nepalese labour
force as the latter could easily secure land under land
resettlement programme or by illegally clearing government
forests. So the commercial farms and tea plantations had
to secure migrant labour from India. Thus agricultural and
industrial development in the Tarai as well as in the service
sectors attracted migrant workers from India.

Open Border and the Bhutanese Refugees

Nepal and Bhutan are separated by a wide
stretch of Indian territory, Darjeeling district of West
Bengal State and Sikkim State. Bhutan and India have no
open border. However, because of the open border between
Nepal and India they could easily enter into Nepal via Indian
territory. In reality, the first place of asylum for the
Bhutanese refugees is India. Under international convention,
it is the responsibility of India to settle them in India
by establishing refugee camps, but India drove them into
Nepal. The Bhutanese refugees represent different Nepalese
ethnic and caste groups, but it does not mean that they
have directly migrated to Bhutan from Nepal. Lots of them
have migrated from different parts of eastern and north-eastern
India as well. Nearly 100,000 Bhutanese refugees are resettled
in the camps in Jhapa and Morang districts. Though they
live in the closed camps with barbed wire fencing, their
movements outside are not restricted, and they are also
able to cross the barbed wire fencing easily. This has affected
the natural, social and economic environment of the surrounding
areas, because they are engaged in illegal cutting of trees
in the government forests, are engaged in business and work
as cheap labour thereby affecting the business and employment
of the local community. It is also alleged that a lot of
Bhutanese refugees have been able to secure Nepalese citizenship
through illegal means. Moreover, a lot of the Indians of
Nepalese origin have also migrated to Bhutan, and naturally
a large numbers of them must be Indians. It is not known
when the Bhutanese refugee problem will be solved.

Prospects, Problems and Challenges
arising from Nepal India Open Border

None of the treaties between Nepal and
India ever mentions the procedures for the regulation of
the Nepal-India border. The trade agreement has specified
the agreed routes for mutual trade. But there is no agreement
regarding movement of the people and the agreed routes for
movement of people of both countries along the border. As
for trade, there are 22 agreed transit and customs posts
along the Nepal-India border. The concept of open border
between Nepal and India has still remained an enigma. Besides,
there are several sub-customs posts. It is alleged that
it is possible to have illegal movement of people and goods
in collaboration with personnel deputed in those posts.
There is no denying the fact that it is not unusual from
the practical point of view to have illegal smuggling of
goods, trafficking of girls to brothels in Indian cities,
trafficking in narcotic drugs, arms and ammunition and movement
of criminals and terrorists. In principle, both Nepal and
India have positively agreed to control such illegal activities
along the border, but there is lack of an effective and
practical approach. So far as smuggling from Nepal to India
is concerned, Mr. Sriman Narayan, the former Indian ambassador
to Nepal, had once described it as smuggling by the Indians,
to the Indians and for the Indians because of the craze
for foreign goods in India and the import of Chinese goods
(Sriman Narayan, 1970: 84). Inder Malhotra, a noted Indian
Journalist, has remarked," Nepal's economic needs should
be treated with maximum understanding and generosity even
if India has to suffer losses here and there, provided no
grave damage is done to the Indian economy. India's unwillingness
to adopt such attitude has been due to the diversion of
import and export between Nepal and India in which a particularly
unsavoury group of Indian businessmen in Nepal have been
the main promoter as well as beneficiaries of the various
rackets. If allowed unchecked, the activities of these ugly
Indians may do incalculable damage to Indo-Nepal relations"
(Malhotra, 1970:6). Since the start of Nepal's foreign trade
with the third countries, Indian business and industrial
enterpreneurs started pouring into Nepal to benefit from
the provision of foreign trade, because of the high demand
for foreign manufactured goods in India and restriction
on the import of foreign goods from abroad as well as very
high import duties. Nepal became safe haven for the Indian
business community to import foreign goods, which had a
high demand in India, and to smuggle them to India. In the
process of industrialisation in Nepal, Indians came in the
forefront for investment by taking advantage of facilities
such as foreign exchange to import machinery and raw materials,
excise and tax exemption and foreign exchange bonus for
the export of goods manufactured in Nepal. But the government's
attempt to develop industries received a setback, because
most of the Indian industrialists indulged in misappropriation
of foreign exchange by importing second grade machinery
and excessive raw materials to sell them in India. Recent
incidents of the import of Indian carpets and garments into
Nepal and their re-export to third country as Nepal's own
products have rendered incalculable damage to the carpet
and garment industries of Nepal. It will be no exaggeration
to state that this is due to the existence of massive corruption
in the government bureaucracy, ad hoc policies, rules and
decisions based on them, and lack of monitoring and evaluation.
Moreover, there is no denying the fact that customs on both
sides of the border are involved in corrupt practices. Despite
the provision of access to market India for a large number
of Nepalese manufactured goods with reduction in customs
tariff as agreed under the trade agreement between Nepal
and India, the problem lies with the non-tariff barrier,
such as harassment to the Nepalese exporters by customs
personnel and police patrols on the ground that they have
not received any directives from the central government,
or the items have more foreign components than stipulated
in the treaty, and so on. . Nepal has been charged with
dumping of Nepalese goods into India. As a result the extension
of the trade treaty has not taken place. It is in the state
of stalemate due to the demand of the Indian government
that the provision of the quantum of foreign component included
in Nepalese manufactured goods must be reduced. Despite
the export of Nepalese manufactured goods as per the trade
agreement, the trade deficit of Nepal with India has remained
several times high and India has not shown any indication
to reduce the trade deficit of Nepal with India. India has
agreed to extend the present trade treaty for another three
months only.

The Main Trade and Transit Points along
the Nepal India Border

The development of market towns took
place along the Nepal India border, mostly near the Indian
railway heads since the early twentieth century. These towns
along the Tarai emerged as trade routes between Nepal and
India with some trade points located in the hills along
border in the east and the west. The development of numerous
transit points emerged during different period after 1951.
The following are the mutually agreed main trade routes
for trade between Nepal and India and transit points for
access to sea from Calcutta port.

Agreed
routes for Mutual Trade

Transit
points to CalcuttaPort

1.

Pashupatinagar
/ Sukhia Pokhari

1.

Sukhia Pokhari

2.

Kakarbhitta
/ Naxalbari

2.

Naxalbari
(Panitanki)

3.

Bhadrapur
/ Galgalia

3.

Galgalia

4.

Biratnagar
/ Jogbani

4.

Jogbani

5.

Setobandha
/ Bhimnagar

5.

Bhimnagar

6.

Rajbiraj /
Kunauli

7.

Siraha, Janakpur
/ Jayanagar

6.

Jayanagar

8.

Jaleswar /
Bhitamore(Sursand)

7.

Bhitamore

9.

Malangawa
/ Sonabarsa

10.

Gaur / Bairgania

11.

Birgunj /
Raxaul

8.

Raxaul

12.

Bhairahawa
/ Nautanwa

9.

Nautanwa (Sonuali)

13.

Taulihawe
/ Khunwa

14.

Krishnanagar
/ Barhni

10.

Barhni

15.

Koilabas /
Jarwa

11

Jarwa

16.

Nepalgunj
/ Nepalgunj Road

12.

Nepalgunj
Road

17.

Rajapur /
Katerniyaghat

18.

Prithivipur
/ Sati (Kailali) / Tikonia

13.

Tikonia

19.

Dhangadhi
/ Gauriphanta

14.

Gauriphanta

20.

Mahendranagar
/ Banbasa

15.

Banbasa

21.

Mahakali /
Jhulaghat (Pithoragarh)

22.

Darchula/Dharchula

Source: Department
of Customs, HMG/Nepal

There are all together main customs posts
along Nepal India and Nepal China borders with the additional
of 143 Choti Bhabsar (sub-customs posts). Nepal has transit
treaty with India only. .Nepal has established 3 dry ports
on the Nepalese side for the transport of goods directly
to and from Calcutta port. They are in Biratnagar, Sirshiya
east of Birgung and Bhairahawa, and the dry port of Sirshiya
Hs provision of railway connection via Raxaul to Calcutta
port.

Immigration Points

The immigration points along the Indo
Nepal border for the entry and exit of nationals from the
third countries are:

Banbasa

Dhangadhi

Nepalganj

Bhairahawa (Sunauli)

Birhanj

Kakarbhita

There are only two immigration points
along the Nepal China border. They are Kodari with road
connections from Kathmandu and Nara Nangla in Humla with
mule track from Simikot. The border checkpost of Nara Nangla,
however, lies several kilometres south inside Humla. As
for the immigration points along Nepal India border, they
are connected by road. Tribhuvan international airport in
Kathmandu is the only immigration point for foreingn nationals
coming by air.

Socio-Cultural Implications of the
Open Border

Socio-cultural similarities on either
side of the international border, a universal phenomenon,
are more pronounced in the case of Nepal-India border, because
such ties have been enhanced by open border with no restrictions
on the movement of people on either side. Social and cultural
similarities do exist along the Nepal China boundary as
well but more so in the case of Nepal India border where
people have easier access and interaction. Ethnic and linguistic
similarities exist along the Nepal-India border both in
the south plains and hills in the east and west. The open
border has naturally promoted social and cultural interaction
among the nationals of both sides through matrimonial relationship
as well.

The role of religious centres of pilgrimage
for both Hindus and Buddhists in both countries has been
responsible for strengthening the social and cultural bonds
between the two countries. Nepal as the abode of Pashupatinath,
and the birth place of Sita and Buddha has been the holiest
place for both Hindus and Buddhists. Regular visits of pilgrims
from India to the holiest places like Lumbini, Janakpur,
Kathmandu Valley, Muktinath, Swargadwari, Barahakshetra,
etc.have contributed to enhancing and strengthening the
cultural relations between the two countries. Likewise,
Nepalese pilgrims visit the holiest Hindu places of Kedarnath,
Kashi, Gaya, Jagannath, Haridwar, Allahabad and holiest
Buddhist places like Buddhagaya, Rajgir, Sarnath, Nalanda,
Kushinagar. People's visits from both countries to places
of tourist attraction as well as to important cities have
contributed to strengthening friendship, mutual understanding
as well as trade and cultural relations.
When health infrastructures in Nepal were not developed,
a large number of people from the Tarai as well as from
the hills used to go to hospitals in India across the border.
During the last few decades, Nepal has been able to develop
health facilities in the country, particularly in the Tarai,
with the establishment of regional, zonal and district hospitals
with modern medical facilities. This has resulted in the
large-scale flow of patients from India into these hospitals.
One noteworthy development of medical facilities in the
Tarai has been the opening of the modern eye hospitals and
opthalmology units in zonal and regional hospitals. These
facilities have resulted in the large scale inflow of eye
patients from the bordering states of India because of quality
and cheap services. A medical institution that has attracted
a large number of cancer patients from India is the cancer
hospital in Bharatpur with ultra modern cancer treatment
facilities. The flow of Nepalese cancer patients to Mumbai
is still continuing. Another important development in the
medical sector is the opening of a number of medical colleges
in Nepal. There are 10 medical colleges in Nepal, most of
them in the private sector. Three medical colleges are located
in Kathmandu, one in Pokhara and 6 in the Tarai: Dharan,
Birgunj, Bharatpur, Bhairahawa, Nepalganj and Chisapani.
These medical colleges have attracted a large number of
Indians including non-resident Indians seeking medical education
and also patients seeking medical services in these hospitals.
The flow of Nepalese students seeking medical education
in India is also continuing. But gradually decreasing in
number.

The legacy of ancient civilisation that
existed along the entire length of Nepal-India border has
been relegated to historical ruins and archaeological remains.
How the ancient civilisations of Mithila, Birat, Koshala,
Shakyas, etc., in the Tarai region perished has still remained
an engima. It has been argued that the bad drainage system
converted ancient towns and villages into malarial places
and people deserted them; they were reverted to natural
state as dense forest infested with wild animals and, above
all, malaria. The Tharus, the Kumhals, the Dhimals, the
Rajbanshis, the Dunwars, etc., are considered to be the
ancient people of these civilisations. They were malaria
immune ethnic groups living in the isolated patches of dense
forests in the Inner Tarai in the past. The migrants from
India as well as from the hills and mountain areas of Nepal
squeezed them. They were gradually displaced from their
traditional tribal lands, and most of them were relegated
to the status of marginal and landless peasants. The existence
of Kamaiya or bonded labour among the Tharus numbering some
8000 families is an instance in point. The Kamaiya system
has been abolished in the country recently without any arrangement
for the rehabilitation of the freed Kamaiyas.

The open border has economically benefited
the nationals inhabiting both sides of the border. Those
engaged in agriculture have economically benefited from
the sale and purchase of agriculture and livestock products
in hat bazaars taking place regularly in different places
on either side. The increasing urbanisation and growth of
towns in the Tarai and along the border inside Nepal has
resulted in large inflow of goods from Indian side into
Nepal. The open border has provided employment to the people
on both sides in the transport sector as well.

Migration into Tarai prior to1860 was
constrained by restriction on the purchase of land by Indian
nationals in Nepal. When the Far Western Tarai was restored
to Nepal in 1860, the legal codes formulated by Prime Minister
Jung Bahadur made provision for the allotment of land to
Indian nationals through sale and purchase so as to appropriate
income from the restored territory for himself, his families
and favourites. This resulted in the large-scale migration
of the Indian people from the adjoining border areas of
India. Similarly Prime Minister Chandra Shumsher also initiated
reclamation of the forest areas of the Tarai for agricultural
purpose on the advice of J.V. Collier, an Indian Forest
Officer. Collier himself became a contractor to clear the
forest in Kailali district by extending railway line up
to Godawari near the Siwalik foothills. Collier cleared
the forest so rapidly that it alarmed the Government of
Nepal which had to cancel the contract. It may also be noted
that the sal forest of Nepal Tarai provided the timber for
much needed railway sleepers for the expansion of Indian
railways. Forests also provided the largest source of revenue
to the government, even after the installation of democracy
in 1951. The reclamation of the Tarai not only attracted
the immigrants from India but also the hill people who were
employed in government services in the Tarai. They purchased
land in the Tarai and became Zamindar, the big landlords.

The installation of democracy in 1951
marked the unrestricted movement of the hill people in the
Tarai as well as from India. It was further accelerated
by malaria eradication programme launched in the Tarai in
the late 1950s. This brought about a drastic change in the
regional redistribution of population in Nepal. Malaria
eradication programme was accompanied by land resettlement
programmes for diverse target groups, such as landless people
mostly from the hills; political sufferers; Gurkha ex-servicemen
both of Nepalese, Indian and British armies; victims of
natural disaster; Nepalese refugees from Burma; Tibetan
refugees, and so on. The Tarai which accounted for only
35.2 percent of the total population of Nepal in 1952/54
had 46.7 percent of the total population of Nepal in 1991
(Table 1)

Regional Distribution of Population in Nepal

(in
Percent)

Region

1952/54

1961

1971

1981

1991

Mountain

-

-

9.9

8.7

7.8

Hill

64.8

63.6

52.5

47.7

45.5

Tarai

35.2

36.4

37.6

43.6

46.7

Nepal

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Source: Central
Bureau of Statistics, HMG,Kathmandu, Nepal, 1991.

Population
growth in the Tarai has shown the highest trend since 1961.
It has been estimated that in the census of 2001 that has
yet to be finalised, the Tarai only with 23.1 percent of
the total land area of the country will have more than 50
percent of total population of Nepal.

The density of population in the adjoining
districts of India is higher than in the adjoining areas
of Nepal. However, development activities in the Tarai districts
of Nepal have been responsible for migration of Indians
into the Tarai. The division of Bihar state with the detachment
of mineral wealth rich and industrial belt going to Jharkhand
and the creation of Uttrakhand with the detachment of fertile
Ganga plain in Uttar Pradesh might inevitably aggravate
further the poverty of the districts of Bihar and Uttarkhand
bordering Nepal and might increase immigration of Indians
into Nepal. In view of the dearth of different skills among
the Nepalese, the skilled manpower required for different
development service activities comes from India and the
process of replacing these migrant workers by Nepalese has
been very slow due to strong competition from the most skilled
migrant workers on the one hand and the lack of government
policy and programmes to train Nepalese in these skills
on the other hand. The failure of the country's education
programme to produce manpower with different technical skills
has resulted in the production of educated mass with limited
demand base in the country's economy. The large number of
unemployed educated youth in the country is creating serious
social, economic and political problems for the family,
society and the nation. There is no denying of the fact
that the emerging Maoist problem of the country is related
to this reality.

The socio-cultural aspect of migration involving migration
of family members, kith and kin, relatives, local communities,
is notable in the case of Indian migrants into Nepal Tarai
from across the adjoining districts of India. One of the
important socio-cultural aspects of migration on either
side of the Nepal-India border is marriage migration. Usually
age and sex selectivity of migration is characterised by
predominance of able-bodied males. But in the case of migration
on either side of the Nepal-India border, it is characterised
by predominance of females over males. The 1991 census of
Nepal revealed 378, 692 Indian born population in the Tarai,
of which only 93,345 persons or 24.7 percent were males
and 285, 347 persons or 75.3 percent were females. The available
figure of Nepal born population in the four States of Bihar,
Sikkim, U.P. and West Bengal, according to the 1981 census
of India, recorded higher proportion of females in Bihar
(39.0 %), Sikkim (52.7 %) and U.P. (56.5 %), while West
Bengal had only 41.1 percent. In India as a whole the proportion
of Nepal born females constituted 52.3 percent of the total,
while in Nepal the India born females constituted 71.9 percent
of the total. The India born population in Nepal accounted
for 2.4 percent of the total population of Nepal, while
the Nepal born population in India constituted 0.07 percent
only. In the Tarai districts, the India born population
represented 4.4 percent of the total population of Tarai.
In the States of Bihar, West Bengal and U.P., Nepal born
population accounted for 0.21, 0.001 and 0.09 percent respectively,
while it was 6.84 percent of the total population in Sikkim.
This clearly indicates the impact of India born population
in Nepal compared to that of Nepal born population in India.

Communal disturbances in India have a
direct bearing upon the increase in the magnitude of Indian
immigrants into the Tarai. The sudden spurt in the increase
of Muslim population in Nepal between 1981 and 1991 is a
clear-cut instance. The Muslim population increased from
399,197 persons in 1981 to 653,218 persons in 1991, which
means an increase of 38.9 percent over a decade. 96.7 percent
of the Muslim population confined to the Tarai constitute
7.32 percent of the total population of the Tarai. The sudden
increase in Muslim population may be attributed to the growth
of garment industry in Nepal to a greater extent and to
other activities to a certain extent, because the Muslim
community possesses diverse occupational skills which other
communities usually lack. Similarly, since 1984 the number
of Sikh immigrants into Nepal has considerably increased.
At present, there are six Gurudwaras in Nepal, namely, in
Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Birganj, Nepalganj, Butwal and Dhangadhi
of which the latter four are in the Tarai.

Quite obviously, development of agriculture,
industry, commerce, transportation and other related activities
in the Nepal Tarai has been attracting Indian immigrants
from across the border. The very high growth of population
in the Tarai has resulted in a growing demand for employment
within the Tarai region itself. The population living on
either side of the Nepal-India border is overwhelmingly
dependent on agriculture, and seasonal employment was open
to them in the past in the agricultural sector in Punjab.
With increased disturbances in Punjab, migration of population
to this region virtually stopped. The ever-increasing immigrants
from across the border into the Tarai have displaced the
local population from their employment opportunities and
they are migrating to the urban areas from the hills, particularly
the Kathmandu Valley, and also to the urban areas of the
Tarai. It is a universal phenomenon that migrants are hard
working people and they can devote more time to their work
because they are free from the day to day obligations of
their families and society. This has indeed resulted in
hatred among the local people towards the immigrants as
they find it difficult to compete with the outsiders. The
eagerness of the immigrants to secure citizenship certificate
by hook or by crook has rather delayed the process of distribution
of citizenship certificates to the bonafide population under
constitutional provisions. Large-scale migration of the
outsiders in Northeastern India, Kashmir and Punjab has
actually displaced migrants who have settled in these areas
for generations, giving rise to the movement for 'sons of
the soil'. There is every danger of this situation cropping
up in Nepal as well, if efforts are not made to regulate
migration. Indians of Nepalese origin being driven away
from Northeastern states of India is a glaring instance.
Nepal-India migration in the real sense represents the mutual
exchange of poverty rather than prosperity.

The most serious and adverse impact of
open and uncontrolled Nepal-India border has been in the
form of growing and anti-social and lawless activities.
The ever increasing crimes along the border has been a major
concern for both governments since early nineteenth century,
and the Treaty of 1855 was aimed at controlling these problems.
However, the policy of open border has rather enhanced such
activities. The unrestricted movement across the border
has indeed been responsible for all sorts of criminal, anti-social
and illegal activities such as robbery, theft, murder, smuggling
of goods to evade custom duties, narcotic drugs trafficking,
trafficking of girls, arms smuggling, smuggling of archaeological
arts and artifacts and manuscripts, kidnapping for rnsoms,
etc. Since 1980s, Nepal-India border has developed into
a thorough passage for the cross border movement of terrorists.
In view of growing terrorism in Uttar Pradesh-Tarai border
in Nepal, members of the Lok Sabha demanded the sealing
of the Nepal India border. When Nepali political leaders
and intellectuals raised their voice for controlling and
regulating the movement of people across the border, their
counterparts in India termed the Nepalese concern as an
anti-Indian stand.

The use of muscle men for booth capturing
and for electoral manipulations on either side of the border
during elections is also not uncommon. Complete sealing
of the major entry points to control such practices a day
or two before elections has not been so effective as there
are no provisions for patrolling along the border. It has
been alleged that criminal elements have been harboured
and provided protection by the political leaders and influential
persons on either side of the border. This sort of activities
also exists along the Nepal-China border. It is alleged
that some of the influential political leaders on the Nepalese
side in collaboration with the border customs officials
are involved in smuggling of the Tibetans to the monasteries
in Kathmandu, for which they are paid handsome amounts.
The Tibetans who illegally cross the Nepal-China border
are handed over by the Home Ministry to the UNHCR representative
in Kathmandu, who in turn hands over them to the office
of the Dalai Lama in India. It is said that Tibetans in
the rural areas who intended to raise their children as
monks and nuns on account of their cultural tradition or
for monetary gain are smuggled into Nepal as refugees. Nepalese
professing Tibetan Buddhism and living along the Nepal-China
border also get their children admitted to the monasteries
in Kathmandu or in the monasteries run by the Dalai Lama.
Most of the religious institutions in which there is manpower
shortage to run temples, monasteries, churches, mosques,
etc. are facing difficulty because men and women from the
urban and developed rural areas have access to education,
social awareness and modern amenities and way of life. So
these religious institutions are attracting people from
the backward and poor rural areas. The monk and nuns in
numerous Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in the Kathmandu Valley
and in other parts of the country can be cited as an instance
in point. Similar situation exists in Sanskrit Pathshalas
and Vedic Pathashalas and also in the religious Islamic
Madrashas in the country.

In recent years, there has been sudden
spurt in crimes such as theft, robbery, kidnapping and murder
on both sides of the border as well as increase in terrorist
activities on the Indian side. Open border has provided
safe passage to criminals and terrorists. The incursion
of Indian police inside Nepal without permission in search
of criminals who fled into Nepal has hurt the sentiments
of the Nepalese and is reported to have generated hatred
against India. There has been a number of intrusions/hot
pursuits by Indian police- Manebhanjyang in December 1987,
Delhi police raid in March 1994 and several other incidents
near Nepalganj, Bhairahawa and Birganj, 90 per cent of these
cases are of Indian origin (Mehata, 2001:21). The incursion
of Indian police without permission of the Nepalese authorities
in connection with manhunt in Baneswaor, Kathmandu is still
fresh in the mind of the Nepalese. Such unauthorised incursions
by the Indian police with blatant violation of international
law and code of conduct need to be avoided.

Apart from tampering with the Nepal India
border by the local people in the Indian side, the Indian
government itself has been involved in the violating the
norms of international boundary treaty. The construction
of dams on the rivers flowing from Nepal just across the
Nepal India boundary on Indian side has resulted in flooding
and submergence of large tracts of Nepalese territories.
It started with the Bagmati river. Recently, the construction
of dm over the Mirchiya river in India has submerged a large
tract of Nepalese territory and threatened the submergence
of the international heritage site of Lumbini, the birth
place of Lord Buddha.

The recent deployment of the Nepalese army in the border
customs checkposts needs serious reconsideration because
of its sensitive nature and role in the national defence
It has demoralised the customs personnel, and police already
working in these checkposts are indirectly branded as corrupt.
There is no guarantee that army personnel also might not
follow the suit of corrupt customs personnel and police
deployed in the border check-posts. The deployment of army
in the border customs check-posts might cause unforeseen
and unwarranted incidents. The recent sad incident along
the disputed India -Bangladesh border is a glaring example
of how hostility may arise between the two friendly countries.
Considering the unresolved boundary demarcation along Nepal-India
border, such army deployment needs serious consideration.
Recently, clash between the local Indian and the Nepalese
people regarding the Nepal-India border occurred in Kakarbhitta
in the Mechi River.
There is a general feeling in Nepal that the Indian leaders
and diplomatic personnel have a tendency to look upon Nepal
with suspicion and distrust, particularly regarding Nepal's
relations with China and Pakistan. This attitude reminds
one of the British colonial legacy. During the exile of
King Rana Bahadur Shah to Benares, the British East India
Company became successful in exploiting the situation by
entering into a treaty with the Nepalese King in 1801. One
of the clauses of the treaty states, "The principals
and officers of both Governments will cordially consider
the friends and enemies of either State to be the friends
and enemies of the other; and this consideration must ever
remain permanent and in force, from generation to generation".
(Aitchison, 1863:196). Though the treaty was abrogated by
the treaty of 1804, most of the Indian leaders and diplomatic
personnel as well as news media have not given up this colonial
legacy from their mind. Regarding the purchase of arms and
ammunitions by Nepal from other countries, Nepal was required
to have permission to import them via Indian territories
from the Government of India. This preconditions envisaged
by the British (Husain, 1970:170-9) was followed by the
independent Government of India as it was incorporated in
the letter of exchange of 1950 treaty. According to the
1965 Nepal-India Agreement on Arms Assistance, Nepal's response
was rather lukewarm, because it was having arms assistance
and purchase from other countries. In view of Nepal's confrontation
against the rebel Khampas among the Tibetan refugees in
Nepal who made forays in Chinese territories from across
the Nepal-China border and the need for training the Nepalese
army in modern weaponry and warfare so as to make them competent
enough to work in the UN Peacekeeping Force, importation
of arms, ammunition and vehicles by Nepal in 1989 became
a pretext for India to impose economic blockade on Nepal
which, however, hurt the Indian traders and businessmen
rather than the Nepalese majority of whom live in the rural
areas. During the 1950 -51 revolution against the Rana regime,
the Nepali Congress had to purchase arms from Burma because
of India's unwillingness. After the installation of democracy,
during the period of Prime Minister Matrika Prasad Koirala,
those arms and ammunition in the hand of the Mukti Sena
(who were posted in Nepal as para-military force) were destroyed
in Khumaltar, Lalitpur under the supervision and presence
of the Chief of the Indian Military Mission in Nepal. During
this period Indian military check-posts were established
along the important border posts along the Nepal-China border.

The attitude of Indian politicians and news media to view
with suspicion any assistance Nepal gets from China and
the debate in both Houses of Indian Parliament on Kathmandu-Kodari
Highway linking Kathmandu with Lhasa and terming them as
"military road capable of moving tanks" bear ample
testimony to this fact. However, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi
had to say, "China is a neighbour of Nepal and naturally
they would like to remain friendly with China also. But
I do not think it is in no way interference with the very
close friendship and close cultural link which we have with
them" (Bhasin, ed., 1970:116). When the Chinese constructed
a ring road around Kathmandu and Lalitpur, some Indian papers
carried the news that the road is wide enough to land jet
fighters. Frequent strains in relations between Nepal and
India at the government level are not due to political,
geographical, economic or cultural reasons, but due to the
amateurish handling of some of the issues by Indian politicians
(Sharma, 1970:2). Recently the statement of Mr. K. R. Malkani
of the Bharatiya Janata Party questioning the sovereignty
and independence of Nepal and the statement of Mr. Thakerey.
President of Shiva Sena in favour of Indian military intervention
following the Royal Palace massacre are instances in point
to hurt the sentiments of Nepalese and the friendly relations
between Nepal and India. Indian news media are also responsible
for spreading false news. The exaggerated and false news
telecast through Indian televisions relating to the incidents
and disturbances in Kathmandu in the aftermath of the Royal
Palace massacre have been largely responsible for the drastic
decline in the tourist flow from India and other countries.
Jawaharlal Nehru, the first Prime Minister of India who
aspireed for and established cordial relations between Nepal
and India, while addressing a press conference in New Delhi
on 18 January 1961, had said, "Broadly speaking, our
relations depend not really on any person's goodwill, on
Nepal's goodwill, on that government or this government They
depend on geography and history, which cannot be easily
done away with" (Bhasin, 1970:55). The concept of territory
and boundary is imbedded in the animal kingdom and mankind
cannot be an exception. Many wars and battles have been
fought over territorial and boundary dispute and are still
continuing in the absence of mutual rapprochement over the
demarcation of boundary between the two States. One must
not forget the Nehru-Zhou-en Lai concept of Hindi_Chini
Bhai Bhai turning into Sino-Indian war of 1962 over the
border dispute. .So Nepal and India must not overlook the
issue of undefined border between the two countries. It
is quite disheartening to note that both countries have
not been able to resolve the boundary issue even during
time span of two decades since the formation of a Joint
Boundary Commission in 1981. The recent understanding reached
between the two governments during the meeting between Prime
Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee and Prime Minister Girija
Prasad Koirala to complete the boundary demarcation within
three years is praiseworthy. However, seriousness and an
action plan required for its completion are still lacking.

There is a need of revision of the border treaty maps regularly
at least every 5 year, because Nepal India boundary run
through the inhabited area as well as along the rivers.
Man made features are naturally appearing on both sides
of the border with possibility of tampering the boundary
and the no man's land as well as changes in the natural
course of the rivers. This will certainly avoid misunderstanding
and dispute that might arise, if the status of border is
no monitored.
An uncontrolled and open border, as stated earlier, constitutes
the breeding ground for anti-social, criminal and illegal
activities. Regulation of the Nepal-India border had become
urgent. In both Nepal and India, voter's identify card has
become compulsory for the voters, and this will facilitate,
to some extent, the task of regulating the movement of population
on either side of the Nepal-India border. The need for both
Nepal and India to provide employment to their citizens
in their respective territories has become urgent in view
of the growing xenophobia against immigrant workers. There
is no denying the fact that Maoist insurgency in Nepal is
basically related to the problem of growing unemployment.
The unrestricted flow of migrant workers might further aggravate
this problem. Similarly, India must have faced the same
problem to a certain extent due to the migrant workers from
Nepal. Both Nepal and India must realise the urgency of
exploring an effective and pragmatic mechanism for the benefit
of both countries and people. Therefore, keeping in view
the welfare and development of people of the two countries,
there is an urgent need to check and regulate the free as
well as illegal movement of people and goods across the
unpatrolled open border through intensive research, joint
reviews and fruitful dialogues on diverse aspects of Nepal-India
open border so that Nepal-India friendship can be further
strengthened.

Annex

Delineation of Nepal-China
Boundary, Problem and Solution of Demarcation

The border areas between
Nepal and China represent one of the least known areas of
the world. The first regular survey of Nepal was conducted
by the Survey of India in 1926-27 and that resulted in the
actual demarcation of Nepal-India boundary with 10yard no
man's land on either side of the land boundary. However,
the demarcation of Nepal-China boundary was made through
a survey from a much lower altitude. The topographical survey
of 1956-58, which covered the whole of Nepal, was also conducted
by the Survey of India. But this survey also could not properly
delineate the boundary between Nepal and China because of
the lack of proper and sophisticated instruments and equipment
as well as the trained personnel to conduct survey in the
high altitudes and rugged terrain. Because of the strategic
importance of the Himalayas and boundary dispute between
India and China as far back as 1950, when India insisted
on Mc Mahon line as Sino-Indian boundary which was rejected
by China (See Annex 4 and Foreign Language Press, 1973:1-33).
India did not provide topographical maps for a large section
of the Nepal Himalayas as the aerial photographs of these
regions had been damaged. When boundary talks between Nepal
and China were initiated for a Boundary Agreement on March
21, 1960, its basis was the maps submitted by both countries.
However, these maps were not based on proper surveys. The
boundaries were drawn on sketch maps, or represented simply
by a boundary line on plain paper or cloth. In order to
solve the dispute resulting from such unscientific maps,
the Joint Boundary Commission was constituted to survey
the entire length of Nepal-China boundary as well as to
resolve the territorial dispute through on-the-spot visit
and assessment of the problem.

The acceptance of traditional customary
boundary by both sides was the major reason for conclusion
of a border agreement on as October 5, 1961. Nepal and China
established diplomatic relations for the first time on August
1, 1955, that is, six years after the establishment of the
People's Republic of China in 1949, and four years after
the installation of democracy in Nepal in 1951. In the Agreement
designed to maintain friendly relations between the People's
Republic of China and the Kingdom of Nepal and in the Agreement
on trade between the Tibetan Autonomous Region of China
and Nepal the customary movement of people and goods along
the border has been accepted. (Foreign Language Press, 1960:1-6).

It is to be noted that the survey for
the delineation of Nepal-China boundary in 1960-61 had to
be carried out with several constraints. Firstly, the survey
had to be carried out from lower altitude and there was
no aerial survey. Secondly, the instruments and equipment
for the survey, manpower as well as proper training for
high altitude survey were completely lacking. Moreover,
in the absence of on-the-spot survey of high altitude areas,
the drawing of the boundary line through the survey was
done by recording actual location of important peaks and
then drawing boundary line tentatively between the two surveyed
peaks. This mainly accounts for change in position and alignment
of Nepal-China boundary between 1961 and 1982 as well as
change in the total length of boundary between 1961 and
1982. A glance at the maps of 1961 and 1982 shows a major
change in Humla and Mustang. The 1982 boundary maps had
been prepared through ground survey on higher altitude than
in 1961 and was supported by aerial survey and satellite
imageries. As compared to 1961, the length of Nepal-China
boundary in 1982 increased to 303 kilometres and the area
has increased by 1.876 sq. km. for Nepal.

The Nepal-China border extends along the whole length of
northern border of Nepal and the starting and ending point
of Nepal-China boundary is the tri-junction of the boundary
between Nepal, China and India. However, because of the
Sino-Indian boundary dispute as well as Nepal-India dispute
over the Kalapani on the source of the Mahakali River, the
demarcation started 5 kilometers ahead of the tri-junction
in the west and 5 kilometres behind the tri-junction in
the east. There is no man-made boundary demarcation on land
as indicated in the boundary treaty maps, except for the
boundary pillars. Along the whole length of Nepal China
boundary, there are 79 boundary pillars, only as against
more than 1000 boundary pillars along Nepal India border
with 10 yards no-man, land on either side of Nepal India
boundary. Under the protocol signed and exchanged between
Nepal and China on January 20,1963, the contracting parties
agreed to maintain and adopt necessary measures to prevent
the removal, damage or destruction of boundary pillars as
far as possible, to prevent the boundary rivers from changing
their course and to make a joint inspection of the entire
boundary every five years. Accordingly, in 1979 a new agreement
was signed between the two countries after detailed mapping
and demarcation of the boundary.

The Entry and Exit Points along the Nepal China Boundary

The Nepal-China border is almost marked
by the absence of settlement on either side. The number
of settlements along the proximity of border is 10 in Nepal
and 18 in China. The border settlements in Nepal are located
in the districts of Humla, Rasuwa, Sindhupalchok, Dolakha
and Sankhuwasabha, and the settlements on the other side
of these districts also are located on Chinese side. The
Gorkha district has no border settlement, but has two settlements
across its border with China.

One notable feature of Nepal-China boundary
is the complete absence of border check posts, except at
the Kodari border. Most of the border check posts are located
at a distance of more than one day's walk from the actual
border on either side. The movement of the border people
living within a distance of 30 kilometres on either side
of the border has been regulated with the provision of multiple
entry permits. However, this provision has not been able
to serve the need and purpose of the border people who wish
to pursue trade or visit relatives on the other side. Most
of the places intended for visit for trade and social relations
lie far ahead of the limit of 30 kilometres. In order to
tackle this problem, the Agreement on Trade, Intercourse
and Related Questions between Nepal and the Tibet Autonomous
region of China was concluded on 2nd May 1966, and renewed
for the third time on 2nd May 1986. In the revised Agreement,
emphasis was laid on identifying areas of movement and fixing
of the exact settlements rather than the 30-kilometre distance
on either side. However, the survey for the identification
of the specified locations of movement for the border people
has not yet been initiated.

It is to be noted that on 7 November 1950,
according to a letter from India ambassador to China, India's
Home Minister Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, in his letter to
Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, stated that Chinese Government
has declined to accept the boundary treaty entered into
between India and Tibet in 1914, and the McMahon line demarcated
as the boundary between India and China in the North Eastern
Frontier of India between Bhutan and Burma (Day, 1982:252-56
and also see Appendix IV). He emphasised the need of controlling
the bordering countries like Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan as
well as India's northern areas bordering China. The main
purpose of India's motive behind imposing the 1950 treaty
on Nepal has been guided by this concern. On the basis of
this motive, during the period of Prime Minister Matrika
Prasad Koirala, India sent Military mission, and the Indian
army was posted at the Nepal-China border check-posts, which
were removed during the period of Prime Minister Kirtinidhi
Bista.

Husain, Asad (1970), British India's Relations
with the Kingdom of Nepal 1857-47
London, George Allen and Unwin.

Kansakar, Vidya Bir Singh (2001) 'Nepal India Open Border:
Problems and
Challenges," keynote paper presented at the Seminar
on Nepal India Open Border: Pros and Cons,organised by Institute
of Foreign Affairs, Kathmandu and sponsored by Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung,
held in Nepalganj (19 April 2001), Biratnagar (3 May 2001)
and Birganj (17 May 2001).

Text of the Tripartite
Agreement Between the Government
of the United Kingdom, the Government of Dominion
of India and the Government of Nepal

Memorandum of Agreement

At a meeting held at Kathmandu on 1st May 1947 between representatives
of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, the Government
of India and Government of Nepal, His Highness the Prime
Minister and Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Nepal stated
that he welcomed the proposals to maintain the Gurkha connection
with the armies of the United Kingdom and India on the following
basis "If the terms and conditions at the final stage
do not prove detrimental to the interest or dignity of the
Nepalese Government, my Government will be happy to maintain
connections with both armies, provided men of the Gurkha
regiments are willing so to serve (if they will not be looked
upon as distinctly mercenary)."

Discussions have taken place in Delhi
between representatives of His Majesty's Government in the
United Kingdom and of the Government of the Dominion of
India and the points of agreement are embodied in the Memorandum
dated 7th November 1947 a copy of which forms Annexture
I of this document. Necessary financial adjustments between
the two Governments are still under consideration.

Further discussions between the representatives
of the three Governments have taken place at Kathmandu during
which the Government of Nepal have put forward certain pertinent
observation on the memorandum of agreement referred to in
the preceeding paragraphs which are set out in Annexture
II. In regard to these points, the representatives of His
Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and of the Government
of the Dominion of India have replied as follows:
a. Location of the Recruiting Depots
The use of the existing depots at Gorakhpur and Ghum has
been sought by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
for a temporary period only pending establishment of their
own depots in Nepal. The wishes of the Government of Nepal
have been noted and arrangements for the establishment in
India of the Recruiting Depots required to meet the needs
of the Gurkha units of the British Army will be settled
between the United Kingdom and Indian Governments.

b. Desire of the Government of Nepal that
the total number of Gurkha Units to be employed in the Armies
of the United Kingdom and of India shall be limited and
brought down to the peace-time strength of 20 Battalions
out of which 8 Battalions will be alloted to the British
Army.

The representatives of Her Majesty's Government
in the United Kingdom and of the Government of Dominion
of India have taken note of the wishes of the Government
of Nepal.

The representative of Her Majesty's Government
in the United Kingdom has explained that the long term planning
of the British Post-War Army has proceeded on the assumption
that the Government of Nepal would be prepared to furnish
sufficient men to establish the equivalent of and Infantry
Division in South-East Asia and he has received an assurance
from the Government of Nepal that final decision on the
question of recruitment of Gurkhas in excess of 8 Battalions
at peace-time strength shall be left open until Her Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom have had an opportunity
of considering the view of the existing political situation
in India.

Arrangement for the import of foreign
currency belonging to the Gurkha units of the 8 Battalions
serving overseas.

It is noted that the Government of the
Dominion of India has agreed to afford all normal facilities
in regard to the import of foreign currency belonging to
these men (Annexture I, Item 10). A reply to the specific
points raised in this connection will be sent to the Government
of Nepal in due course.

The Government of Nepal being generally
satisfied in regard to the terms and taking note of the
agreement dated 7th November 1947 reached between Her Majesty's
Government in the United Kingdom and of the Government of
Dominion of India hereby signify their agreement to the
employment of Gurkha troops in the armies of the United
Kingdom and of India.

In addition to the observations referred
to above the Government of Nepal have put forward certain
suggestions connected with the employment of Gurkhas in
the armies of the United Kingdom and of India. These suggestions
are contained in Annexture II of this document and the views
of the two Governments thereon will be communicated to the
Government of Nepal in due course.

Note has been taken of the desire of Her
Majesty's Government in United Kingdom that prompt action
be taken to ascertain the wishes of the personnel of the
8 Battalions concerned as to whether they desire to be transferred
for service under the United Kingdom Government. With this
objective in view a questionnaire and a memorandum embodying
terms and conditions of service have been prepared by the
representatives of Her Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom. These documents are acceptible to the Governments
of India and Nepal. They will be issued to the personnel
of the 8 units concerned as soon as possible. In accordance
with the wishes of the Government of Nepal as well as those
of the Government of India it is agreed that their representatives
will be present with the 8 units while the referendum is
being taken.

The representatives of the three governments
desire to place on record that their deliberations have
been conducted in an atmosphere of cordiality and goodwill
and are confident that the friendly relations which have
existed in the past will be further cemented as a result
of the arrangements which have been agreed for the continued
employment of Gurkha soldiers in the armies of the United
Kingdom and of India.

Signed in Triplicate at Kathmandu this
9th day of November 1947.

Sd/-
For the Government of the United Kingdom

Sd/-
For the Government of Dominion of India

Sd/-
Padma Shamshere Jung B.R.
For the Government of Nepal

Appendix -II

Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Kathmandu, July 31, 1950

THE government of India and the Government
of Nepal, recognising the ancient ties which have happily
existed between the two countries for centuries;
Desiring still further to strengthen and develop these ties
and to perpetuate peace between the two countries;
Have resolved therefore to enter into a Treaty of Peace
and Friendship with each other and have, for this purpose,
appointed as their plenipotentiaries the following persons,
namely,

Maharaja Mohun Shamsher Jang Bahadur
Rana, Prime Minister and Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Nepal,
who, having examined each other's credentials and found
them good and in due form have agreed as follows:

Article I

There shall be everlasting peace and
friendship between the Government of India and the Government
of Nepal. The two Governments agree mutually to acknowledge
and respect the complete sovereignty, territorial integrity
and independence of each other.

Article II

The two Governments hereby undertake
to inform each other of any serious friction or misunderstanding
with any neighbouring state likely to cause any breach in
the friendly relations subsisting between the two Governments.

Article III

In order to establish and maintain the
relations referred to in Article I the two Governments agree
to continue diplomatic relations with each other by means
of representatives with such staff as is necessary for the
due performance of their functions.
The representatives and such of their staff as may be agreed
upon shall enjoy such diplomatic privileges and immunities
as are customarily granted by international law on a reciprocal
basis:
Provided that in no case shall these be less than those
granted to persons of a similar status of any other State
having diplomatic relations with either Government.

Article IV

The two Governments agree to appoint
Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and other consular
agents, who shall reside in towns, ports and other places
in each other's territory as may be agreed to.
Consuls-General, Consuls, Vice-Consuls and consular agents
shall be provided with exequaturs or other valid authorisation
of their appointment. Such exequatur or authorisation is
liable to be withdrawn by the country which issued it, if
considered necessary. The reasons for the withdrawal shall
be indicated wherever possible.
The persons mentioned above shall enjoy on a reciprocal
basis all the rights, privileges, exemptions and immunities
that are accorded to persons of corresponding status of
any other State.

Article V

The Government of Nepal shall be free
to import, from or through the territory of India, arms,
ammunition or warlike material and equipment necessary for
the security of Nepal. The procedure for giving effect to
this arrangement shall be worked out by the two Governments
acting in consultation.

Article VI

Each Government undertakes, in token
of the neighbourly friendship between India and Nepal, to
give to the nationals of the other, in its territory, national
treatment with regard to participation in industrial and
economic development of such territory and to the grant
of concessions and contracts relating to such development.

Article VII

The Governments of India and Nepal agree
to grant, on a reciprocal basis, to the nationals of one
country in the territories of the other the same privileges
in the matter of residence, ownership of property, participation
in trade and commerce, movement and other privileges of
a similar nature.

Article VIII

So far as matters dealt with herein are
concerned, this Treaty cancels all previous treaties, agreements
and arrangements entered into on behalf of India between
the British Government and the Government of Nepal.

Article IX

This treaty shall come into force from
the date of signature by both Governments.

Article X

This Treaty shall remain in force until
it is terminated by either party by giving one year's notice.

(At a Press Conference in New Delhi on
3rd December 1959 Prime Minister Mr. Jawaharlal Nehru disclosed
that letters were exchanged along with the signing of the
Treaty which have been kept secret - Editor)

In the course of our discussion of the
Treaties of Peace and Friendship and of Trade and Commerce
which have been happily concluded between the Government
of India and the Government of Nepal, we agreed that certain
matters of details be regulated by an exchange of letters.
In pursuance of this understanding, it is hereby agreed
between the two Governments:

(1) Neither Government shall tolerate
any threat to the security of the other by a foreign aggressor.
To deal with any such threat, the two Governments shall
consult with each other and devise effective counter-measures.
Any arms, ammunition or warlike material and equipment necessary
for the security of Nepal that the Government of Nepal may
import through the territory of India shall be so imported
with the assistance and agreement of the Government of India.
The Government of India will take steps for the smooth and
expeditious transport of such arms and ammunition through
India.
In regard to Article 6 of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship
which provides for national treatment, the Government of
India recognize that it may be necessary for some time come
to afford the Nepalese nationals in Nepal protection from
unrestricted competition. The nature and extent to this
protection will be determined as and when required by mutual
agreement between the two Governments.
If the Government of Nepal should decide to seek foreign
assistance in regard to the development of the natural resources
of, or of any industrial project in Nepal, the Government
of Nepal shall give first preference to the Government or
the nationals of India, as the case may be, provided that
the terms offered by the Government of India or Indian nationals,
as the case may be, are not less favourable to Nepal than
the terms offered by any other Foreign Government or by
other foreign nationals.

Nothing in the foregoing provision shall
apply to assistance that the Government of Nepal may seek
from the United Nations Organisation or any of its specialized
agencies.

Both Governments agree not to employ any foreigners whose
activity may be prejudicial to the security of the other.
Either Government may make representations to the other
in this behalf, as and when occasion requires.

His Excellency
Shri Chandreshwar Pasad Narain Singh
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of India
at the Court of Nepal, Indian Embassy
Kathmandu

APPENDIX III

Treaty of Peace and
Friendship between the People's Republic of China and the
Kingdom of Nepal

(April 28, 1960)

The Chairman of the People's Republic
of China and His Majesty the King of Nepal,
Desiring to maintain and further develop peace and friendship
between the People's Republic of China and the Kingdom of
Nepal,
Convinced that the strengthening of good-neighbourly relations
and friendly co-operation between the People's Republic
of China and the Kingdom of Nepal is in accordance with
the fundamental interests of the peoples of the two countries
and conducive to the consolidation of people in Asia and
the world,
Have decided for this purpose to conclude the present treaty
in accordance with the Five Principles of Peaceful Co-existence
jointly affirmed by the two countries, and have appointed
as their respective plenipotentiaries:
The Chairman of the People's Republic of China:
Premier Chou En-lai of the State Council,
His Majesty the King of Nepal:
Prime Minister Bishweshwar Prasad Koirala.

The above-mentioned plenipotentiaries,
having examined each other's credentials and found them
in good and due form, have agreed upon the following:

ARTICLE 1

The Contracting Parties recognize and
respect the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity
of each other.

ARTICLE 2

The Contracting Parties will maintain
and develop peaceful and friendly relations between the
People's Republic of China and the Kingdom of Nepal. They
undertake to settle all disputes between them by means of
peaceful negotiation.

ARTICLE 3

The Contracting Parties agree to develop
and further strengthen the economic and cultural ties between
the two countries in a spirit of friendship and co-operation,
in accordance with the principles of equality and mutual
benefit and of non-interference in each other's internal
affairs.

ARTICLE 4

Any difference or dispute arising out
of the interpretation of application of the present treaty
shall be settled by negotiation through normal diplomatic
channels.

ARTICLE 5

This present treaty is subject to ratification
and the instruments of ratification will be exchanged in
Peking as soon as possible.
The present treaty will come into force immediately on the
exchange of the instruments of ratification and will remain
in force for a period of ten years.
Unless either of the Contracting Parties gives to the other
notice in writing to terminate the treaty at least one year
before the expiration of this period, it will remain in
force without any specified time limit, subject to the right
of either of the Contracting Parties to terminate it by
giving to the other in writing a year's notice of its intention
to do so.
Done in duplicate in Kathmandu on the twenty-eighth day
of April 1960, in the Chinese, Nepali and English languages,
all texts being equally authentic.

(Sd.) CHOU EN-LAI (Sd.) B. P. KOIRALA
Plenipotentiary of the People's Plenipotentiary of the Kingdom
Republic of China of Nepal

Appendix IV

Sardar Patel's letter to Jawaharlal Nehru
on 7-November, 1950

D.O. No. 821-DPM/50
New Delhi, 7th Nov., 1950

My dear Jawaharlal,
Ever since my return from Ahmedabad and after the Cabinet
meeting the same day which I had to attend at practically
fifteen minutes' notice and for which I regret I was not
able to read all the papers, I have been anxiously thinking
over the problem of Tibet and I thought I should share with
you what is passing through my mind.

2. I have carefully gone through the correspondence
between the External Affairs Ministry and our Ambassador
in Peking and through him the Chinese Government. I have
tried to peruse this correspondence as favourably to our
Ambassador and the Chinese Government as possible, but,
I regret to say that neither of them comes out well as a
result of this study. The Chinese Government have tried
to delude us by professions of peaceful intentions. My own
feeling is that at a crucial period they managed to to instil
into our Ambassador a false sense of confidence in their
so-called desire to settle the Tibetan problem by peaceful
means. There can be no doubt that, during the period covered
by this correspondence, the Chinese must have been concentrating
for an onslaught on Tibet. The final action of the Chinese,
in my judgement, is little short of perfidy. The tragedy
of it is that the Tibetans put faith in us; they chose to
be guided by us; and we have been unable to get them out
of the meshes of Chinese diplomacy or Chinese malevolence.
From the latest position, it appears that we shall not be
able to rescue the Dalai Lama. Our Ambassador has been at
great pains to find an explanation or justification for
Chinese policy and actions. As the External Affairs Ministry
remarked in one of their telegrams, there was a lack of
firmness and unnecessary apology in one or two representations
that he made to the Chinese Government on our behalf. It
is impossible to imagine any sensible person believing in
the so-called threat to China from Anglo-American machination
in Tibet. Therefore, if the Chinese put faith in this, they
must have distrusted us so completely as to have taken us
as tools or stooges of Anglo-American diplomacy or strategy.
This feeling, if genuinely entertained by the Chinese in
spite of your direct approaches to them, indicates that,
even though we regard ourselves as the friends of China,
the Chinese do not regard us as their friends. With the
Communist mentality of "Whoever is not with them being
against them," this is a significant pointer, of which
we have to take due note. During the last several months,
outside the Russian Camp, we have practically been alone
in championing the cause of Chinese entry into the UNO and
in securing from the Americans assurances on the question
of Formosa. We have done everything we could to assuage
Chinese feelings, to allay its apprehensions and to defend
its legitimate claims, in our discussions and correspondence
with America and Britain and in the UNO. In spite of this,
China is not convinced about our disinterestedness; it continues
to regard us with suspicion and the whole psychology is
one, at least outwardly, of scepticism, perhaps mixed with
a little hostility. I doubt if we can go any further than
we have done already to convince China of our good intentions,
friendliness and goodwill. In Peking we have an Ambassador
who is eminently suitable for putting across the friendly
point of view. Even he seems to have failed to convert the
Chinese. Their last telegram to us is an ac of gross discourtesy
not only in the summary way it disposes of our protest against
the entry of Chinese forces into Tibet but also in wild
insinuation that our attitude is determined by foreign influences.
It looks as though it is not a friend speaking in that language
but a potential enemy.

In the background of this, we have to
consider what new situation now faces us as a result of
the disappearance of Tibet, as we know it, and the expansion
of China almost up to our gates. Throughout history, we
have seldom been worried about our north-east frontier.
The Himalaya has been regarded as an impenetrable barrier
against any threat from the north. We had a friendly Tibet
which gave us no trouble. The Chinese were divided. They
had their own domestic problems and never bothered us about
our frontier. In 1914, we entered into a convention with
Tibet which was not endorsed by the Chinese. We seem to
have regarded Tibetan autonomy as extending to independent
treaty relationship. Presumably, all that we required was
Chinese counter-signature. The Chinese interpretation of
suzerainty seems to be different. We can, therefore, safely
assume that very soon they will disown all the stipulations
which Tibet has entered into with us in the past. That throws
into the melting pot all frontier and commercial settlements
with Tibet on which we have been functioning and acting
during the last half a century. China is no longer divided.
It is united and strong. All along the Himalayas in the
north and north-east, we have, on our side of the frontier,
a population ethnologically and culturally not different
from Tibetans or Mongoloids. The undefined state of the
frontier and the existence on our side of a population with
its affinities to Tibetans or Chinese have all the elements
of potential trouble between China and ourselves. Recent
and bitter history also tells us that Communism is no shield
against imperialism and that Communists are as good or as
bas as imperialists as any other. Chinese ambitions in this
respect not only cover the Himalayan slopes on our side
but also include important parts of Assam. They have their
ambitions in Burma also. Burma has the added difficulty
that it has no McMahon Line round which to build up even
the semblance of an agreement. Chinese irredentism and Communist
imperialism are different from the expansionism or imperialism
of the Western Powers. The former has a cloak of ideology
which makes it ten times more dangerous. In the guise of
ideological expansion lie concealed racial, national and
historical claims. The danger from the north and north-east,
therefore, becomes both communist and imperialist. While
our western and north-eastern threats to security are still
as prominent as before, a new threat has developed from
the north and north-east. Thus, for the first time, after
centuries, India's defence has to concentrate itself on
tow fronts simultaneously. Our defence measures have so
far been based on the calculations of a superiority over
Pakistan. In our calculations we shall now have to reckon
with Communist China in the north and north-east-a communist
China which has definite ambitions and aims and which does
not, in any way, seem friendly towards us.

4. Let me also consider the political
considerations on this potentially troublesome frontier.
Our northern or north-eastern approaches consist of Nepal,
Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the Tribal Areas in Assam.
From the point of view of communications they are weak spots.
Continuous defensive lines do not exist. There is almost
an unlimited scope for infiltration. Police protection is
limited to a very small number of passes. There too, our
outposts do not seem to be fully manned. The contact of
these areas with us, is, by no means, close and intimate.
The people inhabiting these portions have no established
loyalty or devotion to India. Even Darjeeling and Kalimpong
areas are not free from pro-Mongoloid prejudices. During
the last three years, we have not been able to make any
appreciable approaches to the Nagas and to the hill tribes
in Assam. European missionaries and other visitors had been
in touch with them, but their influence was, in no way,
friendly to India or Indians. In Sikkim, there was political
ferment some time ago. It is quite possible that discontent
is smouldering there. Bhutan is comparatively quite, but
its affinity with Tibetans would be a handicap. Nepal has
a weak oligarchic regime based almost entirely on force;
it is in conflict with a turbulent element of the population
as well as with enlightened ideas of the modern age. In
these circumstances, to make people alive to the new danger
or to make them defensively strong is a very difficult task
indeed, and that difficulty can be got over only by enlightened
firmness, strength and a clear line of policy. I am sure
the Chinese and their source of inspirations, Soviet Russia,
would not miss any opportunity of exploiting these weak
spots, partly in support of their ideology and partly in
support of their ambitions. In my judgement, therefore,
the situation is one in which we cannot afford either to
be complacent or to be vacillating. We must have a clear
idea of what we wish to achieve and also of the methods
by which we should achieve it. Any faltering or lack of
decisiveness in formulating out objectives or in pursuing
our policy to attain those objectives is bound to weaken
us and increase the threats which are so evident.

5. Side by side with these external dangers
we shall now have to face serious internal problems as well.
I have already asked Iengar to send to the External Affairs
Ministry a copy of the Intelligence Bureau's appreciation
of these matters. Hitherto, the Communist Party of India
has found some difficulty in contacting Communists abroad,
our in getting supplies of arms, literature, etc., from
them. They had to contend with difficult Burmese and Pakistan
frontiers on the east or with the long seaboard. They shall
now have a comparatively easy means of access to Chinese
Communists, and through them to other foreign Communists.
Infiltration of spies, fifth columnists and Communists would
not be easier. Instead of having to deal with isolated communist
pockets in Telengana and Warrangal we may have to deal with
Communist threats to our security along our northern and
north-eastern frontiers where, for supplies of arms and
ammunition, they can safely depend on Communist arsenals
in China. The whole situation thus raises a number of problems
on which we must come to an early decision os that we can
as said earlier, formulate the objectives of our policy
and decide the methods by which those actions will have
to be fairly comprehensive involving not only our defence
strategy and state of preparation but also problems of internal
security to deal with which we have not a moment to lose.
We shall also have to deal with administrative and political
problems in the weak spots along the frontier to which I
have already referred.

6. It is, of course, impossible for me
to be exhaustive in setting out all these problems. am,
however, giving below some of the problems, which in my
opinion, require early solution and round which we have
to build our administrative or military policies and measures
to implement them:

a. A military and intelligence appreciation of the Chinese
threat to India both on the frontier and to internal security.

b. An examination of our military position
and such redisposition of our force as might be necessary,
particularly with the idea of guarding important routes
or areas which are likely to be the subject of dispute.

c. The question of Chinese entry into
U.N.O. In view of the rebuff which China has given us and
the method which it has followed in dealing with Tibet,
I am doubtful whether we can advocate its claims any longer.

There would probably be a threat in the
U.N.O. virtually to outlaw China, in view of its active
participation in the Korean War. We must determine our attitude
on this question also.

f. The political and administrative steps
which we should take to strengthen our northern and north-eastern
frontiers. This would include the whole of the border i.e.
Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, Darjeeling and the Tribal Territory
in Assam.

g. Measures of internal security in the
border areas as well as the States flanking those areas
such as U.P., Bihar Bengal and Assam.

h. Improvement of our communications,
road rail, air and wireless in these areas, and intelligence
of frontier outposts.

i. Policing and intelligence of frontier
posts.

j. The future of our mission at Lhasa
and the trade posts at Gyangtse and Yatung and the force
which we have in operation in Tibet to guard the trade routes.

k. The policy in regard to McMahon line.

7. These are some of the questions which
occur to my mind. It is possible that a consideration of
these matters may lead us into wider questions of our relationship
with China, Russia, America, Britain and Burma. This, however,
would be of a general nature, though some might be basically
very important, e.g., we might have to consider whether
we should not enter into closer association with Burma in
order to strengthen the latter in this dealings with China.
I do not rule out the possibility that, before applying
pressure on us , China might apply pressure on Burma. With
Burma, the frontier is entirely undefined and the Chinese
territorial claims are more substantial. In its present
position, Burma might offer an easier problem for China,
and therefore, might claim its first attention.

8. I suggest that we meet early to have
a general discussion on these problems and decide on such
steps as we might thinks to be immediately necessary and
direct quick examination of other problems with a view to
taking early measures to deal with them.

Yours
(sd.) Vallabhbhai Patel

The Hon'ble Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru,
Prime Minister of India,
New Delhi India's Ambassador in Peking at the time was K.
M. Pannikar

Appendix-V

TREATY OF TITALIYA
10 February 1817

Treaty, Covenant or Agreement entered
into by Captain Barre Latter, Agent on the part of His Excellency
the Right Honourable the Earl of Moira, K.G., Governor-General
& C., & C., and by Nazir Chaina Tenjin and Macha
Teinbah and Lama Duchim Longdoo, Deputies on the part of
the Rajah of Sikkimputtee, being severely authorised and
duly appointed for the above purpose- 1817.

Article 1
The Honourable East India Company cedes, transfers, and
makes over in full sovereignty to the Sikkimputtee Rajah,
his heirs or successors, all the hilly or mountainous country
situated to the eastward of the Mechi River and to the westward
of the Teesta River, formerly possessed and occupied by
the Rajah of Nepaul, but ceded to the Honourable East India
Company by the Treaty of Peace signed at Segoulee.

Article 2
The Sikkimputtee Rajah engages for himself and successors
to abstain from any acts of aggression or hostility against
the Gorkhas or any other State.

Article 3
That he will refer to the arbitration of the British Government
any disputes or questions that may arise between his subjects
and those of Nepaul or any other neighbouring State, and
to abide by the decision of the British Government.

Article 4
He engages for himself and successors to join the British
Troops with the whole of his Military Force when employed
within the Hills, and in general to afford the British Troops
every aid and facility in his power.

Article 5
That he will not permit any British subject, nor the subject
of any European and American State to reside within his
dominions, without the permission of the English Government.

Article 6
That he will immediately seize and deliver up any docoits
or other notorious offenders that may take refuge within
his territories.
Article 7
That he will not afford protection to any defaulters of
revenue or other delinquents when demanded by the British
Government through their accredited Agents.

Article 8That he will afford protection to merchants and traders
from the Company's Provinces, and he engages that no duties
shall be levied on the transit of merchandise beyond the
established customs at the several golas or marts.

Article 9
Te Honourable East India Company guarantees to the Sikkimputtee
Rajah and his successors the full an d peaceable possession
of the tract of hilly country specified in the first Article
of the present Agreement.

Article10
This Treaty will be ratified and exchanged by the Sikkimputtee
Rajah within one month from the present date, and the counterpart,
when confirmed by His Excellency the Right Honourable the
Governor General, shall be transmitted to the Rajah.

Done at Titaliya, this 10th day of February
1817, answering to the 9th of Phagoon 1973 Sambat, and to
the 30th Maugh 1223 Bengallie.

BARRE LATTER
NAJIR CHINA TINJIN
MACHA TIMBA
LAMA DUCHIM LONGADOC

MOIRA
N.B. EDMOSTONE
ARCHD SETON
GEO DOWDESWELL
Ratified by the Governor Genera, in Council, at Fort William,
this fifteenth day of March, one thousand eight hundred
and seventeen.

J. Adams
Acting Chief Secretary to Government.

Appendix VI

Copy of A Sunnad granted
to the Rajah of Sikkim
Dated 7th April 1817

The Honourable East India Company, in
consideration of the services performed by the Hill tribes
under the control of the British Government, grants to the
Sikkimputtee Rajah, his heirs and successors, all that portion
of low land situated eastward of the Meitchie River, and
westward of the Maha Nuddee, formerly possessed by the Rajah
of Nepaul, but ceded to the Honourable East India company
by the Treaty of Segoulee, to be held Sikkimputtee Rajah
as a feudatory, or as acknowledging the supremacy of the
British Government over the said lands, subject to the following
Conditions:-

The British laws and regulations will
not be introduced into the territories in question, but
the Sikkimputtee Rajah is authorised to make such laws and
regulations for their internal government, as are suited
to the habits and customs of the inhabitants, or that may
be in force in his other dominions.

The Articles or Provisions of the Treaty
signed at Titalya on the 10th February 1817, and ratified
by His Excellency the Right Honorable Governor-General in
Council on the 15th March following, are to be in force
with regard to the lands hereby assigned to the Sikkimputtee
Rajah, as far as they are applicable to the circumstances
of those lands.

It will be especially incumbent on the
Sikkimputtee Rajah and his officers to surrender, on application
from the officers of the Honourable Company, all persons
charged with criminal offencs, and all public defaulters
who may take refuge in the lands now assigned to him, and
to allow the police officers of he British Government to
pursue into those lands and apprehend all such persons.

In consideration of the distance of the
Sikkimputtee Rajah's residence from the Company's Provinces,
such orders as the Governor-General in council, may upon
any sudden emergency, find it necessary to transmit to the
local authorities in the lands now assigned, for the security
or protection of those lands, are to be immediately obeyed
and carried into execution in the same manner as coming
from the Sikkimputte Rajah.

In order to prevent all disputes with
regard to the boundaries of the low lands granted to the
Sikkimputtee Rajah, they will be surveyed by a British Officer,
and their limits accurately laid down and defined.

Appendix VII

BOUNDARY TREATY
1st November 1860

Boundary Treaty with Nipal, 1st November 1860

During the disturbances which followed the mutiny of the
Native army of Bengal in 1857, the Maharajah of Nipal not
only faithfully maintained the relations of peace and friendship
established between the British Government and the State
of Nipal by the Treaty of Segowlee, but freely placed troops
at the disposal of the British authorities for the preservation
of order in the Frontier Districts, and subsequently sent
a force to co-operate with the British Army in the re-capture
of Lucknow and the final defeat of the rebels. On the conclusion
of these operations, the Viceroy and Governor-General in
recognition of the eminent services rendered to the British
Government by the State of Nipal, declared his intention
to restore to the Maharajah the whole of the lowlands lying
between the River Kali and the District of Goruckpore, which
belonged to the State of Nipal in 1815, and were ceded to
the British Government in that year by the aforesaid treaty.
These lands have now been identified by Commissioners appointed
for the purpose by the British Government, in the presence
of Commissioners deputed by the Nipal Darbar, masonry pillars
have been erected to mark the future boundary of the two
States, and the territory has been formally delivered over
to the Nipalese Authorities. In order the more firmly to
secure the State of Nipal in the perpetual possession of
this territory, and to mark in a solemn way the occasion
of its restoration, the following Treaty has been concluded
between the two States:

Article 1st

All Treaties and Engagements now in force
between the British Government and the Maharajah of Nipal,
except in so far as they may be altered by this Treaty,
are hereby confirmed.

Article 2nd

The British Government hereby bestows
on the Maharajah of Nipal in full sovereignty, the whole
of the lowlands between the Rivers Kali and Raptee, and
the whole of the lowlands lying between the River Raptee
and the District of Goruckpore, which were in the possession
of the Nipal State in the year 1815, and were ceded to the
British Government by Article III of the Treaty concluded
at Segowlee on the 2nd of December in that year.

Article 3rd

The boundary line surveyed by the British
Commissioners appointed for the purpose extending eastward
from the River Kali or Sarada to the foot of the hills north
of Bagowra Tal, and marked by the pillars, shall henceforth
be the boundary between the British Province of Oudha and
the Territories of the Maharajah of Nipal.

This Treaty, signed by Lieutenant-Colonel
George Ramsay, on the part of His Excellency the Right Honourable
Charles John, Earl Canning, G.C.B., Viceroy and Governor-General
of India, and by Maharajah Jung Bahadoor Rana, G.C.B., on
the part of Maharajah Dheraj Soorinder Vikram Shah Bahadoor
Shumshere Jung, shall be ratified, and the ratification
shall be exchanged at Khatmandoo within thirty days of the
date of signature.

Signed and sealed at Khatmandoo, this
First day of November, A.D., one thousand eight hundred
and sixty corresponding to the third day of Kartick Budee,
sumbut nineteen hundred and seventeen.

G. Ramsay, Lieut, Col,
Resident at Nipal

CANNING
Viceroy and Governor-General.

This Treaty was ratified by His Excellency
the Governor-General, at Calcutta, on the 15th November
1860.